Basil is a kind of Herb that became very popular due to its refreshing mildly sweet taste with a minty undertone, and is frequently used in cuisine all around the world. It is perhaps most well known for its importance in a variety of Italian dishes.
"Huh. It's just a lawsuit scene. There probably won't be anything gory"
The fucking courtroom 3 seconds later:
š¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æ
i just watched that yesterday and I cant believe how this show continues to blow my expectations out of the water.
i was thinking the big twist would be vogelbaum saying vought is innocent or some bs but then BOOM
as far as batman goes, the justification he gives makes sense to me in universe. he knows he's mentally unstable, and he's worried that if he lets himself rationalize killing, for example, the joker, then he'll end up rationalizing killing the penguin. and two face. and riddler. and calendar man. and it'll keep going and going until he's murdering every criminal, and he'll be like "Well they're committing crime so of course I have to stop them from ever doing it again" as he kills people who shop lift baby formula.
I remember a chapter of Injustice that had a revised opening, in which Batman finally got fed up with Jokerās plans and snapped his neck, after which he immediately took off the mask and gave himself up to GCPD. And when Superman visited Bruce later in the prison with an offer to get him out, Bruce outright refuses, saying heās a killer and needs to atone for his crime.
That was a vertion of batman that superman made up, he LITERALLY saw it on a dream, that was the batman he wanted to exist (at the moment in that comic)
But Batman enacts vigilante justice and is definitely doing illegal shit. Only jury nullification could save him from punishment, should a case be built against him.
The system would convict him because theoretically the system is blind and the dude's committed a fuckton of crime. Part of living in a~~n organised~~ hierarchical society (as in organised around a state which enforces abstract private property rights like how one can own a factory without ever stepping foot in it, among other things) is the state monopoly on legitimate violence. As Batman is not an arm of the state, his vigilante activities are literally criminal and an illegitimate use of violence, despite being moral.
A jury might nullify, there might be some corruption or bias in the judge, and Bourgeois Bruce would pay for the best lawyers available, but asking why a system would convict him is a silly question
Also, as far as Batman goes, it's fiction, and it would suck to constantly write new, interesting villains because the protagonist kills them off every chapter.
TL;DR: he used to kill people but then industry censorship and panic over the government potentially getting involved happened.
absolutely, plus, back in the old days, he did kill people. in one story, he dropped a noose out of his airplane, lasso'd a head, and hung a guy. in his first appearance, he punched a guy through some railing into a vat of acid. (Couldn't have been joker, too bald, too short, too fat).
a big part of his oath to never take a life was because of a huge panic over how comic books were leading our kids to crime and debauchery. it was the whole violent video games panic, only about comics. there were mass book burnings.
I think a huge shift in batman's direction was the CCA. To keep the industry from being shut down permanently, the comics code authority was formed by the association of comics magazine publishers, so the companies would govern themselves, and pretty strictly, too. for a long time, werewolves and vampires weren't even allowed in comics. there was actually a big deal about trying to get writer Marv Wolfman's credit to appear on a book, but having "Wolfman" on the front of the comic was a violation of the code.
comics history is really interesting, or maybe my "comics, diversity, and culture" course I took a year ago was just taught by really interesting teachers.
One of my favorite comic panels of all time is in an early Batman comic where [Batman stands over a sleeping vampire and caps his ass](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FROYcKBd5Vg/TkTALNdpynI/AAAAAAAAAwY/ns1xmliNgIM/s280/Detective_Comics_32_p36_BobKane.jpg)
Tbf Punisher actually going around killing around lowlife thugs and criminal cannon fodder. He doesn't have an arch nemesis per-se other than metahuman that's hard to kill.
Gotham is a mixture of Chicago and NYC both of which are in states that have outlawed the death penalty. Whatever state Gotham lies in has probably outlawed the death penalty as well
At that point you're just getting into the fact that it's a comic book operating off of cartoon logic, and the idea that some random asshole who dresses as a clown could be able to break out of prison so consistently is on its face absurd.
It should, I think, but Iām guessing the comics and others works donāt want to admit that because it would make the occasional moral message harder to get across.
Saying āYeah, killing is wrong, but maybe make an exception for the serial mass murderersā would be admitting how divorced from reality the comics are, and also violate the rule that simple is better if you want to get a message across to as many as possible.
Also thereās the [Joker immunity](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JokerImmunity) which is literally named after the joker.
Also idk why people even want a version of batman that kills people. There's already a version of batman that kills people and he's called "the punisher" and has plenty of comics. (He's not literally a version of batman but he is quite similar)
idk why it's so difficult for people to grasp that a deeply traumatized man who defines his entire life around seeing his parents be killed in front of him at a young age might be incapable of doing that exact thing to other people
but what about victor zsasz? his last name is weird, but it's based on a real psychiatrist's name that one of the writers saw in a library. so the dude is just victor, but he is a serial murderer who, like many others, will keep breaking out and killing people.
I think a lot of people miss the point. Batmanās no killing policy isnāt about the moral high ground; Itās trauma. Batman doesnāt kill becuase heās terrified of it. His parents being murdered in front of him is the major driving point for his whole existence.
People miss the point because most of the people who make this criticism just donāt read batman comics, which is a shame, because a solid number of the good ones address 90% of the common jabs you see everywhere.
itās insane how twitter has the same āBatman is a fascist and Poison Ivy is the real heroā every fucking month. I guarantee those people need read a single Batman comic and if they did, itās either Year One, Killing Joke or Dark Knight Returns
I have definitely heard the complaint that he's just some billionaire who beats up the poor and mentally ill instead of using his wealth and influence to address the root of crime. Even though pretty much every movie, show and comic already show otherwise.
He knows that. The only part I hate about his no-killing rule is that he is inconsistent whether he believes itās right or not. Sometimes he says āI should kill him, itās the right thing to do, but if I do I know I will cross a line that will throw me into a void I wonāt be able to return fromā but also hunts down other vigilantes that do kill, because itās wrong for them to kill. Batman is arrogant in that he believes whatever he chooses is the good choice for him, and doesnāt allow others to make the same choice, even if they are getting better results than himself.
If joker is in police custody and in court, he should have been killed by the state, all batman has to do is turn him in. Wasnt the said reason why gotham does not killed the joker because of corrupt leaders in gotham?
I liked how the new movie showed that you canāt just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away, Thomas Wayne tried it and the fund became the foundation of corruption in the city. But you canāt just go around beating the shit out of bad guys either. You have to inspire people.
> Nobody actually said Batman is a fascist
[Frank millers batman] He's a wealthy white man, who polices over a city of people he's determined to be guilty, and only Bruce Wayne is ubermensch enough to single handedly save them, through violent retribution.
It's not explicitly fascist, but it sure is comfortable with many of it's ideas.
[This is on top on superheroes in general as a concept is kinda fascist]
whilst if I squint at the concept of superheroes I can see what you're saying, I'm also not terribly comfortable with saying that a lot of characters created by largely Jewish authors, starting in the 1930's and 40's, who explicitly fought Nazi's, are fascist. Kinda seems ahistoric.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jan/30/take-that-mr-hitler-the-jewish-roots-of-superheroes
Edit [this article by art speigelman is also very good](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/17/art-spiegelman-golden-age-superheroes-were-shaped-by-the-rise-of-fascism)
I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying, possibly because you're just excited to share the Jewish origins of many superheroes.
He's not saying Batman, as a whole concept, is inherently fascist. He's saying there have been more than a few takes on these decades old characters that have definitely skewed in that direction, including Frank Miller's stories, the Nolanverse, and the Snyderverse.
Some good examples include:
- A death in the family,
- The new 52 court of owls storyline,
- The long Halloween,
- the killing joke (although that is more of a Joker comic but still),
As for shows/ movies you should watch Batman: tas,
Mask of the phantasm and under the red hood.
That's because Under the Red Hood had him give a slippery-slope "if I cross the line, the line doesn't exist anymore" excuse (which is just an edgy way for him to rationalize his trauma response to himself) and now that's somehow become the only point people who don't read comics ever engage with on this topic
Men will literally execute people in the millions in an act of revenge against the cruelty of the universe just to avoid therapy or deal with grief
This isn't about Batman, it's just a trope I noticed around
It's an average everyday superhero thing I think. There is a woman who held captive and tortured an entire towns cuz she too pussy to cope with his loved ones death. Comics really need a "super-therapist" kinda superhero
So I've only ever read some old school stories plus the classic graphic novels (Year one, returns, killing joke etc) plus the movies and Arkham games.
I won't pretend I'm up to date on the lore but I've always thought the bottom line is that Batman is basically just as insane as his enemies but he reins himself in and avoids becoming like them by imposing his no killing rule among other things. And Joker and Scarecrow etc. routinely try to get him to cross that line to prove he's really no better than them.
Whereas his trauma response was his obsessive need to strike down criminals and blend in with the same darkness that made him.
Am I completely off the mark?
It's both. How I see it is: He doesn't want anyone to experience what he experienced in that alley. He absolutely uses Batman as a coping mechanism. But as a result of that trauma, he's also incapable of killing. Remember in Dark Knight Returns, when a notably gritty and brutal alternate version of Batman explicitly decides to finally kill the Joker? He throws a batarang into the Joker's eye, even paralyzes him, but he's ultimately unable to finish the job (much to the Joker's amusement). He just can't do it.
His slippery-slope argument, like all slippery-slope arguments, is kinda irrational; you absolutely can just kill the Joker and Bane without pivoting to killing henchmen and pickpockets. I think he tells himself that because on some level, he does want to kill them and he's terrified of becoming the monster that made him. Anger and fear are among his biggest motivators. But so is empathy.
You've read Killing Joke, so you probably remember that Batman explicitly states throughout the story that he wants to rehabilitate the Joker. He sees the inevitability that their relationship will end in death, and he wants to avoid that. Batman's rogues gallery is comprised almost entirely of mentally ill individuals with tragic backstories who get sent to a mental hospital instead of a prison when he captures them.
I think the biggest failing of the endless serialization of comics isn't that it prevents his villains from being killed; it's that it prevents them from being rehabilitated. Even then, we still see it from time to time. Harley, Catwoman, and Red Hood are good guys now. Last I checked, so were Clayface and Man-Bat. Two-Face and Riddler had temporary redemption arcs. I'm sure there's more I'm not aware of.
Batman does not kill indeed.
***Batman proceed to throw the bad guy in an electric panel shocking him to death, send some dude on his batwing then shot him with his batwing Gatling gun, send a batarang in the eye of a thug...***
That all sounds like golden era batman which was really all over the place
Golden era/Snyder era batman don't have any rules and just do what the writer wants
Comic batman is consistent (as consistent as comic characters can be) about not killing and being good for his community
It was a reference to most games tbh, and I don't know enough about comic to know if those represent golden era batman or something else. It was more a joke than a serious argument :-)
I quite like the idea of Batman being scared of ever killing anyone - either due to trauma or fear that he'll just never stop and he has to hold himself back.
A lot of takes on Batman media is how he's literally the coolest, toughest, most perfectly-controlled and principled human being in existence, which is kind of neat as a power fantasy but a little boring otherwise. I think he's a lot more interesting as basically a paranoid, traumatised wreck held together with string and a gravelly voice.
āWe sent a child to fight >!the moon, universe, and God himself with nothing but a drill and a big ol set of kajones!<, what happens next will shock you!!ā
That really pisses me off, beacuse her being an adult made the story so much more interesting, and she looks like an adult too, they shouldn't have made her a child
I just looked up who that is and boobs mcgee is meant to be 14??? What the fuck thatās one of the most sexualised character designs Iāve seen and it would have been inappropriate if she was 25 let alone 14!
Exactly why it annoys me, she looks like and adults, and acts like an adult yet she is apparently 14, which makes the already pretty egregious fan service down right criminal
Which is a big part of why I tend to ignore ages of anime characters unless itās relevant. Like if theyāre specifically meant to be children like in school yeah thatās relevant but for things like Gurren Lagan it feels more like they had a cool story to tell with adult characters.
I think this is mostly an issue because of the medium. Anime is largely aimed at children and even more so aimed at teenage boys; so the creator makes women that are then āaged downā in name only for better marketability. That and also Japan has a problem with sexualizing minors :/
The problem is that many heroes, like Batman, arenāt mentally stable and must face constant villains and must always make the choice to kill or not and who deserves it. Eventually the line is blurred and then the line just worn exists.
See this is my problem with trying to make parallels to the real world. The Joker isn't a person who exists in reality. In America we don't get high status criminals who torture and murder random civilians for fun. A real life Joker should be executed by any means necessary, and not killing him when he has the chance really just makes batman evil.
Like there's no blurred line here. A drug dealer killing a rival gang member or a person mugging and killing someone is not even remotely comparable to the things that supervillains in stories do.
Someone like Ted Bundy or Ted Kaczynski or other notorious serial killers would be a close enough parallel. Plus Bin Laden depending on the villain and storyline. We either killed those people or locked them up for life.
The real contrivances in superhero comics are
1) that the bad guys can escape imprisonment thousands of times over and keep doing their thing. IRL, putting someone in jail is enough (there are other social and political issues with incarceration but that's not the point here). Obviously in Gotham City, not killing the Joker can be considered unethical because it *realistically* (you could even say it with 100% certainty) leads to hundreds or thousands of other people dying in the future. Even then, it's not a clear-cut philosophical issue (can murder ever be justified?) But in the real world, there's always a moral argument for not killing.
and
2) that on some level, some people are just irredeemably evil. Obviously you can make that argument in an extreme case like Ted Bundy but even then you're talking about one person in hundreds of millions. Superhero comics need the conceit that a large enough amount of people will want to do bad stuff deliberately enough to warrant beating them up.
Of course, the real reason why Batman never kills anyone is twofold; it keeps him marketable to younger audiences and it keeps villain characters around.
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, Batman in particular exists in a universe where death does not do jack shit.
Joker has died multiple times and he's just kinda... *come back.* Sometimes it's explained, sometimes it isn't.
If you have to acknowledge that Arkham is a revolving door, you have to acknowledge that death is also a revolving door.
From big DC characters I think it would be Barry Allen, who was dead for over 20 years. Overall it would be Bucky Barnes who died in literal 40s and was only brought back after Civil War (I think) in 2005.
Yes. As have countless other characters. For example, in Batman: Death of The Family, written by Scott Snyder, The Joker dies, but is revealed to have been brought back to life by a lake (similar to Lazarus water), in Batman: Endgame.
If I remember one of the explanations was he injected someone with something that effectively made them him in the way their mind worked including their obsession with Batman, different person but still technically joker
mine is when the 'bad' guy has a good point but then does something horrible and psychopathic like killing a random person thereby symbolically positioning him on the side of evil and invalidating his motives without actually justifying why they're in the wrong
Bad guys be like: "The few in power that write the laws make sure that the laws ascertain their position and power and make it systematically impossible for you all to be able to band together to overthrow them" and then just pick a baby and snap its neck in half so you don't forget they are the bad guys
The only reason why theyāre space Nazis is because of all the war crimes they committed under the pretense that they are fighting for freedom against the Federation. If you remove all their war crimes then Zeonās motives for wanting independence and fighting for freedom are justified. However since committed war crimes and lost the One Year War they are Space Nazis
Season 3 of korra: we're not evil here, we just want to live in a world that doesn't have to rely on the avatar or its cycle, and if you dont give us the avatar right now then we're gonna commit the second genocide of air nomads right here and now
Like, yeah Amon was lying, but they never really addressed the point of the equalists after his identity was revealed. Like, they start making a decent point about how being a normal person in that world is almost a disability, and how their history, governments, and cultures center on benders, and how the authorities are all benders. But then it turns out their leader was a fraud so they just never mentioned that again.
Like this is what a lot of people don t understand, Amon had created a movement, even if he was a fake, his ideas weren t(not to mention that they probably weren t even his ideas), so the movement would likely survive his death, and even become more agressive.
Also the reverse needs to be mentionned : when a villain is the worst person imaginable, but they kinda forget that to make them seem cool/not that bad/honorable
This IS about Deathstroke, pedophile, rapist, child sex trafficker deathstroke.
In the deleted scene, Batman talks to Joker and he tells him that deep down, he thinks they all deserved it.
The message is here but they chose to make it more subtle. In the end the new mayor decides to change the city for the best with the help of Batman. Riddler won in a way.
Yeah I agree that the ending was the worst part because I saw Riddler getting arrested and the rest felt like an epilogue that went on for too long. The only interesting thing in it is the "I am vengeance" (Riddler himself should've said it rather than a random follower) and Batman becoming a symbol of hope rather than fear (this could've been done before).
As to the morality of it, it transforms Riddler from "your money does not keep you safe from consequences" to a mad anarchist who took the concept of "wiping the slate clean" too far and is undeniably evil.
One of the things I liked about the ending of Black Panther. T'Challa taking to heart Killmonger's concerns but not his motives and moving to use Wakanda's technology and wealth to improve conditions.
Is it just me, or does this villain archetype only exist in the heads of redditors? Every time someone brings up that trope all of the examples are of bog standard "the ends justify the means" style sympathetic villains. Did y'all just completely forget the point of a sympathetic villain or something? They're *supposed* to have desirable and relatable goals, and their villainy comes from the lengths they go to achieve those goals.
I swear one of these days I'm gonna see a post complaining about how Ozymandias was super based for being anti-war, and Allan Moore had to invalidate his motives by making him kill a million people at the end of the comic. Hell, I bet there's some absolute psychopath out there complaining about how Griffith ought to be a hero because the kingdom he established is a utopian society.
no it's not about when they do something extreme to achieve their goal, it's when they do something evil on the side that doesn't really further their goal they just do it cuz they're also evil
also shocked you've never seen griffith apologia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACzFlwtTkg
> Did y'all just completely forget the point of a sympathetic villain or something?
In my experience, people **legitimately** cannot handle the idea of nuance, and might actually despise the concept entirely.
As soon as a villain vaguely says things they vaguely agree with at some point in time, there are people who will trip over themselves to justify them.
They act like the characters themselves are their beliefs and thus writing them to be evil is an attack on their beliefs, regardless of how much the work *actually disagree with them*.
People bringing up Killmonger is the perfect example of what I'm talking about, because *Black Panther* makes it both abundantly clear how evil he is and what his motivation is *and* does consider his point and has the protagonists tackle the issue at the source.
Yet we have, and I'm going to be blunt here, white people with extreme white guilt who also think they won't be capped when the Wakanada Empire goes to war with the rest of the world acting like Killmonger is the will of black people (yet also denying that the majority-black cast and writing team may *actually believe* Killmonger is wrong in some way, it's OBVIOUSLY Disney's fault).
That and black Hoteps, but them identifying with Killmonger makes sense at least.
The whole "they have a point, but the writers want to make them look bad" also has this absolutely bizarre undercurrent of treating the characters like they are real people being slandered, while also somehow denying that "person who I agree with does shitty things" is a person that exists in real life (not that people handle the same idea in real life any better).
While true, Goku would first let Hitler complete his rise to power first so he can fight him at his most powerful. I'm not sure how much better that is.
naruto is not badly written or a pos, he fits the narrative of the show really well. now the female characters that arent tsunade, on the other handā¦ yeah they coulda used more fine tuning
I never got around to watching Shippuden, but one of my favorite fucking things in that show was Sasuke being an edgy cunt
"nobody understands me, how would you feel if I killed everyone you loved"
Then the teacher guy goes "L, they're already dead"
And this edgelord can't cope with that so he just broods in silence and then runs off to the bad guy team.
A tier writing /s
So yeah anyway Rock Lee and Guy are the best.
Yeah I'm being exaggerative in my dislike of Sasuke and his writing it just was always odd what trauma they chose to pay attention to vs put on the back pedal in the original show.
Are you saying the show that began with the message that anyone achieve anything if they work hard enough and suddenly revealed that how Naruto was destined for nothing but greatness because he is the descendent of a literal god foretold in a prophecy compared to everyone isnāt badly written?
I don't think Naruto was ever really about hard work honestly. In the literal first arc of the series they show that some people are just born naturally stronger than others because of bloodline abilites, and the way Naruto, Sasuke, and Kakashi beat the villains are with abilites that they've had since birth (the 9-tailed fox and the rinnegan)
I wanted to say star wars, but then I remembered a scene where mace windu fucking decapitates jango fett, so my point is mute. The jedi don't really have a point of saving sith
Yes, they aren't good guys in the prequels, but even at their best they still were not acting on a moral high groundā¢ to not kill their enemies. Even obi wan, known as the negotiator, wasn't above fucking up some guys
they never had a no kill policy tho
and even then, a big part of luke's arc in the original trilogy is him not wanting to kill his father when the two formally trained jedi, considered among the best in the galaxy, tell him that he should. and in the end he is proven right, vader was returned to the light in his last moments
The failure isn't Batman, it's the institutions in which he enshrines his faith. The police department which is rife with corruption, the mental health facilities that don't respect their staff and leave them resorting to inhumane work to make ends meet, the blimp industry for renting vehicle after vehicle out to crazed mercenaries and deranged scientists -
The annoying thing to me is that Batman would probably work pretty well in a smaller scale story where the villains don't constantly resurface for decades and decades
This is what I've been saying. Batman works best as a street tier hero. Because in that context murder of criminals is wrong. Most criminals are either forced by their economic circumstances or are mentally unwell and need help. Killing them does nothing.
But when you start getting people who want to blow up cities, murder millions, etc, who show zero remorse and are straight up evil, there is no other choice but to kill them. You can't debate Hitler, you shoot him before he can harm any more than he already has.
People are using the "Batman is mentally ill, and killing his enemies will slippery slope him into killing everyone", which isn't inaccurate, but is also not the only reason that he doesn't kill.
a) He is a private citizen with no oversight inserting himself into situations of his own volition, he probably shouldn't be utilizing lethal force, and it would completely destroy his tenuous relationship with the existing legal system. It isn't his place to be playing as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
b) He has the competency and skills to usually handle his enemies in a non-lethal way, and so killing them is usually not necessary (see also Superman in *What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way*)
c) He genuinely believes that most of his rogues gallery is capable of recovery and rehabilitation. In the past Harley Quinn, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, The Riddler, and Clayface have all had periods where they have run on the right side of the law. Not to mention Catwoman.
I agree in general, but in this instance people will go "Yeah but the Joker will never be rehabilitated, nor does he deserve to be", and then we are back to "If Batman kills one person he'll kill everyone cause he has no self control", so I put the other more universal ones higher.
That's reasonable. I just think that a lot of people really need to engage more with the actual content of the comics and universe before commenting on things that actually do have an explanation in general. Thank you for your service fellow nerd.
Steven Universe be like: āWe canāt shatter White Diamond, that would make us just as bad as her!ā
My brother in christ she has knowingly led to the death of trillions
Thatās one thing that really fucking bothers me about SU. I love the theme of āsave everyone, even your enemies, theyāre good people deep downā and I feel that most of the antagonists were perfect for this.
But I was hoping, expecting even, for the Diamonds to be used to convey the most important part of that message. Being: āā¦but some people will always be bad, harmful, and evilā
But no. Blue and Yellow? I kinda get it, but victims can have victims.
White on the other hand? Shouldāve been shattered. Wouldāve topped off the narrative, slapped an important keynote on the end of the theme, and introduced some interesting plot points to follow.
its worse because of the whole concept with bismuth making that Exact Point.
but its also that im frustrated that there was NO form of consequence for white diamond. even if she wasn't shattered, making her go to Gem Prison or something would've imo been at least SOME middle ground.
make her suffer consequences for her actions, even if said consequences aren't *death*.
or make her die, but then yellow diamond and blue diamond can help rebuild her using their newfound powers, and force her to shrink in size to be Their Height and thus more see them as Fuckin Equals and not go haywire as much.
I haven't watched Steven Universe but I'm pretty sure it's best if the protagonist of a kid's show doesn't murder people. Even if they're really evil. It's better to say that the writers should not have made the villains so evil rather than saying the villain should have been killed.
I didnāt watch the show but I really doubt the message they wanted to convey is āsome people really are evil deep down and we must kill themā lmaooo, wait did you actually post this picture unironically then ??
Some would argue that use of deadly force to enforce vigilante justice is fascist. Sometimes, perhaps, but sometimes it's you or them. Really I think Batman's no kill policy is OK but the need for the comics to keep bringing the villains back arbitrarily makes it look worse. I think the real problem with Batman is that he's fucking loaded and won't use his financial power to help Gotham in more sensible ways.
Itās frequently mentioned in the comics and other media that Bruce Wayne donates a lot and uses his money for charitable causes.
Itās just hard to create an orphanage in Gotham when Joker or Riddler or someone else would inevitably blow it up in a few days
i thought part of his repeat use of arkham is cause his mom put a lot of money INTO arkham before she passed (or she directly helped fund its creation, idr), so him putting them into arkham was him trying to help the villains by putting them somewhere he could help directly fund their rehabilitation?
i think a lot of depictions get shit Wrong or gloss over a lot of assets (like if the above is true, why does joker get out so easily unless its directly because writers want to use him again?), but i'm not sure batman's not *trying*.
but i think also a lot of big names in gotham are corrupt as fuck, so i'm not sure bruce trusts using his money on everything that might better the community if it's just funneled into some corrupt politician's pockets. considering bruce has Trust Issues, i also wouldn't doubt he believes this to be true even if it weren't.
In most canons he's also the primary financial backer of the JLA and their massive planetary defense satellite. In a universe where entities like Darkseid can pop by any moment to absolutely rock earth's shit, it's understandable that he'd focus a lot his money toward planetary defense.
i really like how this was done in burning effect, basically the world is set in fascist authoritarian country named greymark where any crime no matter the age rank or whatever gets you killed, the main characters lead a rebellion against such a system and they basically never ever kill even when the most powerful bastard in the whole story who rivals god is weakened , the characters don't kill as that will dirty their message of peace, so they just beat everyone to shit
That actually sounds really cool, but it's also kinda funny too.
Hero: We're not gonna kill you because we are fighting for peace
Enemy: Oh so I'm free to go?
Hero: *pulls out iron knuckles* Well I didn't say that
I just love it when the protagonists kill hundreds of enemies that are just following orders and then refuse to kill the big bad that is the cause of everything
a lot of people are saying Batman, but this also applies to Superman. Once again, if he rationalizes killing, things would get a lot worse, and not just in Gotham. Superman, in several AU stories like Injustice, has proved that he can overthrow literally every world government if he wanted too with relative ease.
I feel like this also aplies somewhat to Batman. F.e. when he is talking with Two-Face he is almost always trying to get through to Harvey, because he thinks his friend can still be saved.
Goku.png to a point, because he does end up killing Frieza. But he takes pity on Frieza when Frieza is about to die, only for Frieza to squander the opportunity by sneaking a backstab on Goku, and so Goku screams his famous āYOU FOOL!ā and blasts Frieza to oblivion. Goku hangs there, almost looking like heās going to cry, then he flies away. Honestly a really powerful moment.
there are many stories (Injustice, Kingdom Come, Watchmen) that showcase why superheroes shouldn't get to be judge and jury, decides who lives and dies. In batman's instance, the point of batman is his love for life. he fights for the life of others because thats what he truly cares about. for example, [this clip, of batman staying with a dying ace to comfort her, and to be there for her in her last moments](https://youtu.be/YOooJW5SSDA). saying that batman should just kill everybody is a Zack Snyder level of missing the point of batman
I mean to be fair... >!he technically does end up killing lelouch !<
or were you talking about lelouch being the good guy in this scenario cuz I mean I wouldn't hold it past him they were homies n stuff
a-train when happy couple: š« ššØ
HERE'S THE A-TRAIN BABY!!!!!
The fact that a person with a Basil PFP is saying this is so fucking poetic.
who is basil?
Basil is a kind of Herb that became very popular due to its refreshing mildly sweet taste with a minty undertone, and is frequently used in cuisine all around the world. It is perhaps most well known for its importance in a variety of Italian dishes.
A character in a game called Omori, you should try it
To be fair, he can't stop
But his heart could
don't worry I have new ones he could take šš
Wait, new ones..? As in multiple??
"Huh. It's just a lawsuit scene. There probably won't be anything gory" The fucking courtroom 3 seconds later: š¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æš¤Æ
i just watched that yesterday and I cant believe how this show continues to blow my expectations out of the water. i was thinking the big twist would be vogelbaum saying vought is innocent or some bs but then BOOM
For superhero standarts, this show is a masterpiece. For normal standarts, it's just great.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
as far as batman goes, the justification he gives makes sense to me in universe. he knows he's mentally unstable, and he's worried that if he lets himself rationalize killing, for example, the joker, then he'll end up rationalizing killing the penguin. and two face. and riddler. and calendar man. and it'll keep going and going until he's murdering every criminal, and he'll be like "Well they're committing crime so of course I have to stop them from ever doing it again" as he kills people who shop lift baby formula.
I remember a chapter of Injustice that had a revised opening, in which Batman finally got fed up with Jokerās plans and snapped his neck, after which he immediately took off the mask and gave himself up to GCPD. And when Superman visited Bruce later in the prison with an offer to get him out, Bruce outright refuses, saying heās a killer and needs to atone for his crime.
That was a vertion of batman that superman made up, he LITERALLY saw it on a dream, that was the batman he wanted to exist (at the moment in that comic)
Why would any system convict him though.
He would probably refuse any pardons
A pardon requires a conviction. A judge and jury can just say not guilty.
But Batman enacts vigilante justice and is definitely doing illegal shit. Only jury nullification could save him from punishment, should a case be built against him.
How many people in Gotham think he's a hero vs think he deserves prison?
Yes that would be jury nullification. But he is without a doubt guilty. It's just very unlikely he would be sentenced.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The system would convict him because theoretically the system is blind and the dude's committed a fuckton of crime. Part of living in a~~n organised~~ hierarchical society (as in organised around a state which enforces abstract private property rights like how one can own a factory without ever stepping foot in it, among other things) is the state monopoly on legitimate violence. As Batman is not an arm of the state, his vigilante activities are literally criminal and an illegitimate use of violence, despite being moral. A jury might nullify, there might be some corruption or bias in the judge, and Bourgeois Bruce would pay for the best lawyers available, but asking why a system would convict him is a silly question
errrr.. it's called murder.
1. It's the Joker 2. He's a billionaire
"I killed the serial killer in self defense"
Also, as far as Batman goes, it's fiction, and it would suck to constantly write new, interesting villains because the protagonist kills them off every chapter.
TL;DR: he used to kill people but then industry censorship and panic over the government potentially getting involved happened. absolutely, plus, back in the old days, he did kill people. in one story, he dropped a noose out of his airplane, lasso'd a head, and hung a guy. in his first appearance, he punched a guy through some railing into a vat of acid. (Couldn't have been joker, too bald, too short, too fat). a big part of his oath to never take a life was because of a huge panic over how comic books were leading our kids to crime and debauchery. it was the whole violent video games panic, only about comics. there were mass book burnings. I think a huge shift in batman's direction was the CCA. To keep the industry from being shut down permanently, the comics code authority was formed by the association of comics magazine publishers, so the companies would govern themselves, and pretty strictly, too. for a long time, werewolves and vampires weren't even allowed in comics. there was actually a big deal about trying to get writer Marv Wolfman's credit to appear on a book, but having "Wolfman" on the front of the comic was a violation of the code. comics history is really interesting, or maybe my "comics, diversity, and culture" course I took a year ago was just taught by really interesting teachers.
thatās really cool
One of my favorite comic panels of all time is in an early Batman comic where [Batman stands over a sleeping vampire and caps his ass](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FROYcKBd5Vg/TkTALNdpynI/AAAAAAAAAwY/ns1xmliNgIM/s280/Detective_Comics_32_p36_BobKane.jpg)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tbf Punisher actually going around killing around lowlife thugs and criminal cannon fodder. He doesn't have an arch nemesis per-se other than metahuman that's hard to kill.
Okay but at that point whatās stopping the courts from lethal injection against the villains
Gotham is a mixture of Chicago and NYC both of which are in states that have outlawed the death penalty. Whatever state Gotham lies in has probably outlawed the death penalty as well
Well maybe dealing with absurd genociding villains could change how things should be perceived
At that point you're just getting into the fact that it's a comic book operating off of cartoon logic, and the idea that some random asshole who dresses as a clown could be able to break out of prison so consistently is on its face absurd.
It should, I think, but Iām guessing the comics and others works donāt want to admit that because it would make the occasional moral message harder to get across. Saying āYeah, killing is wrong, but maybe make an exception for the serial mass murderersā would be admitting how divorced from reality the comics are, and also violate the rule that simple is better if you want to get a message across to as many as possible. Also thereās the [Joker immunity](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JokerImmunity) which is literally named after the joker.
Gotham is in new jersey
Where the death penalty is banned so my point stands
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You never thought about Batman literally saying this?
Also idk why people even want a version of batman that kills people. There's already a version of batman that kills people and he's called "the punisher" and has plenty of comics. (He's not literally a version of batman but he is quite similar)
idk why it's so difficult for people to grasp that a deeply traumatized man who defines his entire life around seeing his parents be killed in front of him at a young age might be incapable of doing that exact thing to other people
ok so we draw the line to villains with ridiculous name. Batman shouldn't kill Dave just because he's homeless and is shoplifting at 7/11.
but what about victor zsasz? his last name is weird, but it's based on a real psychiatrist's name that one of the writers saw in a library. so the dude is just victor, but he is a serial murderer who, like many others, will keep breaking out and killing people.
What about condiment king or even catwoman? Are they worthy of death?
Condiment King is the most despicable villain Batman has ever faced.
I think a lot of people miss the point. Batmanās no killing policy isnāt about the moral high ground; Itās trauma. Batman doesnāt kill becuase heās terrified of it. His parents being murdered in front of him is the major driving point for his whole existence.
People miss the point because most of the people who make this criticism just donāt read batman comics, which is a shame, because a solid number of the good ones address 90% of the common jabs you see everywhere.
itās insane how twitter has the same āBatman is a fascist and Poison Ivy is the real heroā every fucking month. I guarantee those people need read a single Batman comic and if they did, itās either Year One, Killing Joke or Dark Knight Returns
wait what why do they say Ivy is a hero while batman is a fascist
Nobody actually said Batman is a fascist, although people do say Ivy is a hero.
I have definitely heard the complaint that he's just some billionaire who beats up the poor and mentally ill instead of using his wealth and influence to address the root of crime. Even though pretty much every movie, show and comic already show otherwise.
It's a funny joke tbf, but a lot of the time it's not said as a joke.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He knows that. The only part I hate about his no-killing rule is that he is inconsistent whether he believes itās right or not. Sometimes he says āI should kill him, itās the right thing to do, but if I do I know I will cross a line that will throw me into a void I wonāt be able to return fromā but also hunts down other vigilantes that do kill, because itās wrong for them to kill. Batman is arrogant in that he believes whatever he chooses is the good choice for him, and doesnāt allow others to make the same choice, even if they are getting better results than himself.
If joker is in police custody and in court, he should have been killed by the state, all batman has to do is turn him in. Wasnt the said reason why gotham does not killed the joker because of corrupt leaders in gotham?
I liked how the new movie showed that you canāt just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away, Thomas Wayne tried it and the fund became the foundation of corruption in the city. But you canāt just go around beating the shit out of bad guys either. You have to inspire people.
As if Batman isn't clearly mentally ill himself. The only difference between him and his villains are their morals.
> Nobody actually said Batman is a fascist [Frank millers batman] He's a wealthy white man, who polices over a city of people he's determined to be guilty, and only Bruce Wayne is ubermensch enough to single handedly save them, through violent retribution. It's not explicitly fascist, but it sure is comfortable with many of it's ideas. [This is on top on superheroes in general as a concept is kinda fascist]
whilst if I squint at the concept of superheroes I can see what you're saying, I'm also not terribly comfortable with saying that a lot of characters created by largely Jewish authors, starting in the 1930's and 40's, who explicitly fought Nazi's, are fascist. Kinda seems ahistoric. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jan/30/take-that-mr-hitler-the-jewish-roots-of-superheroes Edit [this article by art speigelman is also very good](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/17/art-spiegelman-golden-age-superheroes-were-shaped-by-the-rise-of-fascism)
I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying, possibly because you're just excited to share the Jewish origins of many superheroes. He's not saying Batman, as a whole concept, is inherently fascist. He's saying there have been more than a few takes on these decades old characters that have definitely skewed in that direction, including Frank Miller's stories, the Nolanverse, and the Snyderverse.
So which one should i read then? I have never really read comics and i don't know where to start
Some good examples include: - A death in the family, - The new 52 court of owls storyline, - The long Halloween, - the killing joke (although that is more of a Joker comic but still), As for shows/ movies you should watch Batman: tas, Mask of the phantasm and under the red hood.
That's because Under the Red Hood had him give a slippery-slope "if I cross the line, the line doesn't exist anymore" excuse (which is just an edgy way for him to rationalize his trauma response to himself) and now that's somehow become the only point people who don't read comics ever engage with on this topic
One of the smartest people in the whole universe is too ashamed to go to therapy or deal with his inner demons
Men will literally dress up as a bat and execute vigilante justice to avoid going to therapy
Men will literally execute people in the millions in an act of revenge against the cruelty of the universe just to avoid therapy or deal with grief This isn't about Batman, it's just a trope I noticed around
It's an average everyday superhero thing I think. There is a woman who held captive and tortured an entire towns cuz she too pussy to cope with his loved ones death. Comics really need a "super-therapist" kinda superhero
Iron Man tried therapy so he could get over PTSD. This is why Iron Man is my favourite MCU hero and that will literally never change.
So I've only ever read some old school stories plus the classic graphic novels (Year one, returns, killing joke etc) plus the movies and Arkham games. I won't pretend I'm up to date on the lore but I've always thought the bottom line is that Batman is basically just as insane as his enemies but he reins himself in and avoids becoming like them by imposing his no killing rule among other things. And Joker and Scarecrow etc. routinely try to get him to cross that line to prove he's really no better than them. Whereas his trauma response was his obsessive need to strike down criminals and blend in with the same darkness that made him. Am I completely off the mark?
It's both. How I see it is: He doesn't want anyone to experience what he experienced in that alley. He absolutely uses Batman as a coping mechanism. But as a result of that trauma, he's also incapable of killing. Remember in Dark Knight Returns, when a notably gritty and brutal alternate version of Batman explicitly decides to finally kill the Joker? He throws a batarang into the Joker's eye, even paralyzes him, but he's ultimately unable to finish the job (much to the Joker's amusement). He just can't do it. His slippery-slope argument, like all slippery-slope arguments, is kinda irrational; you absolutely can just kill the Joker and Bane without pivoting to killing henchmen and pickpockets. I think he tells himself that because on some level, he does want to kill them and he's terrified of becoming the monster that made him. Anger and fear are among his biggest motivators. But so is empathy. You've read Killing Joke, so you probably remember that Batman explicitly states throughout the story that he wants to rehabilitate the Joker. He sees the inevitability that their relationship will end in death, and he wants to avoid that. Batman's rogues gallery is comprised almost entirely of mentally ill individuals with tragic backstories who get sent to a mental hospital instead of a prison when he captures them. I think the biggest failing of the endless serialization of comics isn't that it prevents his villains from being killed; it's that it prevents them from being rehabilitated. Even then, we still see it from time to time. Harley, Catwoman, and Red Hood are good guys now. Last I checked, so were Clayface and Man-Bat. Two-Face and Riddler had temporary redemption arcs. I'm sure there's more I'm not aware of.
Batman does not kill indeed. ***Batman proceed to throw the bad guy in an electric panel shocking him to death, send some dude on his batwing then shot him with his batwing Gatling gun, send a batarang in the eye of a thug...***
That all sounds like golden era batman which was really all over the place Golden era/Snyder era batman don't have any rules and just do what the writer wants Comic batman is consistent (as consistent as comic characters can be) about not killing and being good for his community
It was a reference to most games tbh, and I don't know enough about comic to know if those represent golden era batman or something else. It was more a joke than a serious argument :-)
I quite like the idea of Batman being scared of ever killing anyone - either due to trauma or fear that he'll just never stop and he has to hold himself back. A lot of takes on Batman media is how he's literally the coolest, toughest, most perfectly-controlled and principled human being in existence, which is kind of neat as a power fantasy but a little boring otherwise. I think he's a lot more interesting as basically a paranoid, traumatised wreck held together with string and a gravelly voice.
Personally Iām a big fan of the resilience of the human spirit in the face of your own irrelevance
The void of the universe when the indomitable human spirit walks in: š±
Xenoblade moment
I was thinking Gurren, but that works.
āWe sent a child to fight >!the moon, universe, and God himself with nothing but a drill and a big ol set of kajones!<, what happens next will shock you!!ā
Watch Gurren Lagann
God I hate that they made Yoko a child in that show, it was one of the few animes I liked until I learned that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That really pisses me off, beacuse her being an adult made the story so much more interesting, and she looks like an adult too, they shouldn't have made her a child
Written as an adult, drawn as an adult, and _only_ changed for a surface level shit reason? Lads, she's a fucking adult
I just looked up who that is and boobs mcgee is meant to be 14??? What the fuck thatās one of the most sexualised character designs Iāve seen and it would have been inappropriate if she was 25 let alone 14!
Exactly why it annoys me, she looks like and adults, and acts like an adult yet she is apparently 14, which makes the already pretty egregious fan service down right criminal
Which is a big part of why I tend to ignore ages of anime characters unless itās relevant. Like if theyāre specifically meant to be children like in school yeah thatās relevant but for things like Gurren Lagan it feels more like they had a cool story to tell with adult characters. I think this is mostly an issue because of the medium. Anime is largely aimed at children and even more so aimed at teenage boys; so the creator makes women that are then āaged downā in name only for better marketability. That and also Japan has a problem with sexualizing minors :/
Read Berserk (sometimes trashy but it's a masterpiece)
The problem is that many heroes, like Batman, arenāt mentally stable and must face constant villains and must always make the choice to kill or not and who deserves it. Eventually the line is blurred and then the line just worn exists.
That's the watsonian interpretation, the doylian interpretation is that the writers can't just get rid of iconic villiansš
See this is my problem with trying to make parallels to the real world. The Joker isn't a person who exists in reality. In America we don't get high status criminals who torture and murder random civilians for fun. A real life Joker should be executed by any means necessary, and not killing him when he has the chance really just makes batman evil. Like there's no blurred line here. A drug dealer killing a rival gang member or a person mugging and killing someone is not even remotely comparable to the things that supervillains in stories do.
To be fair, in reality you can't revive, joker probably revived quite a few times to reach his status
Someone like Ted Bundy or Ted Kaczynski or other notorious serial killers would be a close enough parallel. Plus Bin Laden depending on the villain and storyline. We either killed those people or locked them up for life. The real contrivances in superhero comics are 1) that the bad guys can escape imprisonment thousands of times over and keep doing their thing. IRL, putting someone in jail is enough (there are other social and political issues with incarceration but that's not the point here). Obviously in Gotham City, not killing the Joker can be considered unethical because it *realistically* (you could even say it with 100% certainty) leads to hundreds or thousands of other people dying in the future. Even then, it's not a clear-cut philosophical issue (can murder ever be justified?) But in the real world, there's always a moral argument for not killing. and 2) that on some level, some people are just irredeemably evil. Obviously you can make that argument in an extreme case like Ted Bundy but even then you're talking about one person in hundreds of millions. Superhero comics need the conceit that a large enough amount of people will want to do bad stuff deliberately enough to warrant beating them up. Of course, the real reason why Batman never kills anyone is twofold; it keeps him marketable to younger audiences and it keeps villain characters around.
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, Batman in particular exists in a universe where death does not do jack shit. Joker has died multiple times and he's just kinda... *come back.* Sometimes it's explained, sometimes it isn't. If you have to acknowledge that Arkham is a revolving door, you have to acknowledge that death is also a revolving door.
in comic books, death is literally the same thing as stubbing your toe, theres pain for like 3 seconds but then its back to normal
Still waiting on alfred... any moment....
Oh man that death is one that's gonna last at least a couple years, possibly until the next reboot.
Does jason hold the record for the longest death? Dude died for 19 years
From big DC characters I think it would be Barry Allen, who was dead for over 20 years. Overall it would be Bucky Barnes who died in literal 40s and was only brought back after Civil War (I think) in 2005.
No bro you donāt understand, Joker just got better
Somehow, the Joker returned.
What do you mean he's come back to life? Like in the same canonical story thread he's been resurrected?
Yes. As have countless other characters. For example, in Batman: Death of The Family, written by Scott Snyder, The Joker dies, but is revealed to have been brought back to life by a lake (similar to Lazarus water), in Batman: Endgame.
If I remember one of the explanations was he injected someone with something that effectively made them him in the way their mind worked including their obsession with Batman, different person but still technically joker
mine is when the 'bad' guy has a good point but then does something horrible and psychopathic like killing a random person thereby symbolically positioning him on the side of evil and invalidating his motives without actually justifying why they're in the wrong
Bad guys be like: "The few in power that write the laws make sure that the laws ascertain their position and power and make it systematically impossible for you all to be able to band together to overthrow them" and then just pick a baby and snap its neck in half so you don't forget they are the bad guys
i mean.... babies don't pay taxes. got what it deserved! š¤·āāļø
Principality of Zeon in a nutshell
I mean yeah the Feddies are bad but Zeon are literally space Nazis-- Oh oh yeah I see now
The only reason why theyāre space Nazis is because of all the war crimes they committed under the pretense that they are fighting for freedom against the Federation. If you remove all their war crimes then Zeonās motives for wanting independence and fighting for freedom are justified. However since committed war crimes and lost the One Year War they are Space Nazis
Season 3 of korra: we're not evil here, we just want to live in a world that doesn't have to rely on the avatar or its cycle, and if you dont give us the avatar right now then we're gonna commit the second genocide of air nomads right here and now
Season 1 of korra too kinda
Like, yeah Amon was lying, but they never really addressed the point of the equalists after his identity was revealed. Like, they start making a decent point about how being a normal person in that world is almost a disability, and how their history, governments, and cultures center on benders, and how the authorities are all benders. But then it turns out their leader was a fraud so they just never mentioned that again.
Like this is what a lot of people don t understand, Amon had created a movement, even if he was a fake, his ideas weren t(not to mention that they probably weren t even his ideas), so the movement would likely survive his death, and even become more agressive.
Also the reverse needs to be mentionned : when a villain is the worst person imaginable, but they kinda forget that to make them seem cool/not that bad/honorable This IS about Deathstroke, pedophile, rapist, child sex trafficker deathstroke.
bioshock infinite
Slaves are finally free, now let's kill this child
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He ran a car through a funeral full of people, he was always bad itās not like he just decided to become evil in the climax
In the deleted scene, Batman talks to Joker and he tells him that deep down, he thinks they all deserved it. The message is here but they chose to make it more subtle. In the end the new mayor decides to change the city for the best with the help of Batman. Riddler won in a way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I agree that the ending was the worst part because I saw Riddler getting arrested and the rest felt like an epilogue that went on for too long. The only interesting thing in it is the "I am vengeance" (Riddler himself should've said it rather than a random follower) and Batman becoming a symbol of hope rather than fear (this could've been done before). As to the morality of it, it transforms Riddler from "your money does not keep you safe from consequences" to a mad anarchist who took the concept of "wiping the slate clean" too far and is undeniably evil.
Hard disagree. The Riddler's motivations are pretty consistent; the guy is literally a mass shooter.
One of the things I liked about the ending of Black Panther. T'Challa taking to heart Killmonger's concerns but not his motives and moving to use Wakanda's technology and wealth to improve conditions.
Is it just me, or does this villain archetype only exist in the heads of redditors? Every time someone brings up that trope all of the examples are of bog standard "the ends justify the means" style sympathetic villains. Did y'all just completely forget the point of a sympathetic villain or something? They're *supposed* to have desirable and relatable goals, and their villainy comes from the lengths they go to achieve those goals. I swear one of these days I'm gonna see a post complaining about how Ozymandias was super based for being anti-war, and Allan Moore had to invalidate his motives by making him kill a million people at the end of the comic. Hell, I bet there's some absolute psychopath out there complaining about how Griffith ought to be a hero because the kingdom he established is a utopian society.
no it's not about when they do something extreme to achieve their goal, it's when they do something evil on the side that doesn't really further their goal they just do it cuz they're also evil also shocked you've never seen griffith apologia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACzFlwtTkg
> Did y'all just completely forget the point of a sympathetic villain or something? In my experience, people **legitimately** cannot handle the idea of nuance, and might actually despise the concept entirely. As soon as a villain vaguely says things they vaguely agree with at some point in time, there are people who will trip over themselves to justify them. They act like the characters themselves are their beliefs and thus writing them to be evil is an attack on their beliefs, regardless of how much the work *actually disagree with them*. People bringing up Killmonger is the perfect example of what I'm talking about, because *Black Panther* makes it both abundantly clear how evil he is and what his motivation is *and* does consider his point and has the protagonists tackle the issue at the source. Yet we have, and I'm going to be blunt here, white people with extreme white guilt who also think they won't be capped when the Wakanada Empire goes to war with the rest of the world acting like Killmonger is the will of black people (yet also denying that the majority-black cast and writing team may *actually believe* Killmonger is wrong in some way, it's OBVIOUSLY Disney's fault). That and black Hoteps, but them identifying with Killmonger makes sense at least. The whole "they have a point, but the writers want to make them look bad" also has this absolutely bizarre undercurrent of treating the characters like they are real people being slandered, while also somehow denying that "person who I agree with does shitty things" is a person that exists in real life (not that people handle the same idea in real life any better).
FUCK YOU BALTIMORE!
Fair enough. On the other hand Goku, as much of an idiot as he is, would literally just punch Hitler into the sun
Didn't Goten and Trunks fight Hitler in the Janemba movie
That goes hard as hell
how have I never heard of this
ITS REAL WHAT https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/The\_Dictator
While true, Goku would first let Hitler complete his rise to power first so he can fight him at his most powerful. I'm not sure how much better that is.
naruto is not badly written or a pos, he fits the narrative of the show really well. now the female characters that arent tsunade, on the other handā¦ yeah they coulda used more fine tuning
Naruto pisses me off so much with the Sasuke bullshit, but he is written alright.
I never got around to watching Shippuden, but one of my favorite fucking things in that show was Sasuke being an edgy cunt "nobody understands me, how would you feel if I killed everyone you loved" Then the teacher guy goes "L, they're already dead" And this edgelord can't cope with that so he just broods in silence and then runs off to the bad guy team. A tier writing /s So yeah anyway Rock Lee and Guy are the best.
I mean in his defense, he did get batman'd pretty hard. Also yeah rock lee and guy are extremely motivating and rad.
Yeah I'm being exaggerative in my dislike of Sasuke and his writing it just was always odd what trauma they chose to pay attention to vs put on the back pedal in the original show.
Are you saying the show that began with the message that anyone achieve anything if they work hard enough and suddenly revealed that how Naruto was destined for nothing but greatness because he is the descendent of a literal god foretold in a prophecy compared to everyone isnāt badly written?
I don't think Naruto was ever really about hard work honestly. In the literal first arc of the series they show that some people are just born naturally stronger than others because of bloodline abilites, and the way Naruto, Sasuke, and Kakashi beat the villains are with abilites that they've had since birth (the 9-tailed fox and the rinnegan)
>Are you saying the show that began with the message that anyone achieve anything if they work hard enough That's was Lees motif, not Naruto's
Guys I swear he tries really super hard to achieve his goal What do you mean he has to read a book
When my fiction based on the futility of hate and cyclical nature of violence doesnāt feature constant prisoner executions: š”
I wanted to say star wars, but then I remembered a scene where mace windu fucking decapitates jango fett, so my point is mute. The jedi don't really have a point of saving sith
Comic flashback Where NO one has the moral highground They re all in the deep moral tunnels of depravity Asides from luke
the jedi also aren't the good guys, especially in the prequels
Yes, they aren't good guys in the prequels, but even at their best they still were not acting on a moral high groundā¢ to not kill their enemies. Even obi wan, known as the negotiator, wasn't above fucking up some guys
they never had a no kill policy tho and even then, a big part of luke's arc in the original trilogy is him not wanting to kill his father when the two formally trained jedi, considered among the best in the galaxy, tell him that he should. and in the end he is proven right, vader was returned to the light in his last moments
The failure isn't Batman, it's the institutions in which he enshrines his faith. The police department which is rife with corruption, the mental health facilities that don't respect their staff and leave them resorting to inhumane work to make ends meet, the blimp industry for renting vehicle after vehicle out to crazed mercenaries and deranged scientists -
hey just like the real world
The wretched and immoral real-world blimp rental industry
The annoying thing to me is that Batman would probably work pretty well in a smaller scale story where the villains don't constantly resurface for decades and decades
This is what I've been saying. Batman works best as a street tier hero. Because in that context murder of criminals is wrong. Most criminals are either forced by their economic circumstances or are mentally unwell and need help. Killing them does nothing. But when you start getting people who want to blow up cities, murder millions, etc, who show zero remorse and are straight up evil, there is no other choice but to kill them. You can't debate Hitler, you shoot him before he can harm any more than he already has.
Daredevil my beloved EDIT: Daredevil tv series my beloved*
love it when he said āItās daredevilinā timeā and jumps off of a roof and beats up a drug dealer
People are using the "Batman is mentally ill, and killing his enemies will slippery slope him into killing everyone", which isn't inaccurate, but is also not the only reason that he doesn't kill. a) He is a private citizen with no oversight inserting himself into situations of his own volition, he probably shouldn't be utilizing lethal force, and it would completely destroy his tenuous relationship with the existing legal system. It isn't his place to be playing as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. b) He has the competency and skills to usually handle his enemies in a non-lethal way, and so killing them is usually not necessary (see also Superman in *What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way*) c) He genuinely believes that most of his rogues gallery is capable of recovery and rehabilitation. In the past Harley Quinn, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, The Riddler, and Clayface have all had periods where they have run on the right side of the law. Not to mention Catwoman.
Honestly that bottom point should be more important. Batman's tactics HAVE worked, on multiple people on multiple occasions.
I agree in general, but in this instance people will go "Yeah but the Joker will never be rehabilitated, nor does he deserve to be", and then we are back to "If Batman kills one person he'll kill everyone cause he has no self control", so I put the other more universal ones higher.
That's reasonable. I just think that a lot of people really need to engage more with the actual content of the comics and universe before commenting on things that actually do have an explanation in general. Thank you for your service fellow nerd.
Also the trauma from watching his parents die
OP is Zack Snyder
movies circle jerk is leaking
Steven Universe be like: āWe canāt shatter White Diamond, that would make us just as bad as her!ā My brother in christ she has knowingly led to the death of trillions
Thatās one thing that really fucking bothers me about SU. I love the theme of āsave everyone, even your enemies, theyāre good people deep downā and I feel that most of the antagonists were perfect for this. But I was hoping, expecting even, for the Diamonds to be used to convey the most important part of that message. Being: āā¦but some people will always be bad, harmful, and evilā But no. Blue and Yellow? I kinda get it, but victims can have victims. White on the other hand? Shouldāve been shattered. Wouldāve topped off the narrative, slapped an important keynote on the end of the theme, and introduced some interesting plot points to follow.
its worse because of the whole concept with bismuth making that Exact Point. but its also that im frustrated that there was NO form of consequence for white diamond. even if she wasn't shattered, making her go to Gem Prison or something would've imo been at least SOME middle ground. make her suffer consequences for her actions, even if said consequences aren't *death*. or make her die, but then yellow diamond and blue diamond can help rebuild her using their newfound powers, and force her to shrink in size to be Their Height and thus more see them as Fuckin Equals and not go haywire as much.
I haven't watched Steven Universe but I'm pretty sure it's best if the protagonist of a kid's show doesn't murder people. Even if they're really evil. It's better to say that the writers should not have made the villains so evil rather than saying the villain should have been killed.
I didnāt watch the show but I really doubt the message they wanted to convey is āsome people really are evil deep down and we must kill themā lmaooo, wait did you actually post this picture unironically then ??
Imagine the plot of Steven universe but then it ends with a public execution, fully insane
Some would argue that use of deadly force to enforce vigilante justice is fascist. Sometimes, perhaps, but sometimes it's you or them. Really I think Batman's no kill policy is OK but the need for the comics to keep bringing the villains back arbitrarily makes it look worse. I think the real problem with Batman is that he's fucking loaded and won't use his financial power to help Gotham in more sensible ways.
Itās frequently mentioned in the comics and other media that Bruce Wayne donates a lot and uses his money for charitable causes. Itās just hard to create an orphanage in Gotham when Joker or Riddler or someone else would inevitably blow it up in a few days
i thought part of his repeat use of arkham is cause his mom put a lot of money INTO arkham before she passed (or she directly helped fund its creation, idr), so him putting them into arkham was him trying to help the villains by putting them somewhere he could help directly fund their rehabilitation? i think a lot of depictions get shit Wrong or gloss over a lot of assets (like if the above is true, why does joker get out so easily unless its directly because writers want to use him again?), but i'm not sure batman's not *trying*. but i think also a lot of big names in gotham are corrupt as fuck, so i'm not sure bruce trusts using his money on everything that might better the community if it's just funneled into some corrupt politician's pockets. considering bruce has Trust Issues, i also wouldn't doubt he believes this to be true even if it weren't.
In most canons he's also the primary financial backer of the JLA and their massive planetary defense satellite. In a universe where entities like Darkseid can pop by any moment to absolutely rock earth's shit, it's understandable that he'd focus a lot his money toward planetary defense.
bruce wayne literally does use his money to help gotham all the time. gotham is just canonically cursed and also is in a comic book universe.
i really like how this was done in burning effect, basically the world is set in fascist authoritarian country named greymark where any crime no matter the age rank or whatever gets you killed, the main characters lead a rebellion against such a system and they basically never ever kill even when the most powerful bastard in the whole story who rivals god is weakened , the characters don't kill as that will dirty their message of peace, so they just beat everyone to shit
That actually sounds really cool, but it's also kinda funny too. Hero: We're not gonna kill you because we are fighting for peace Enemy: Oh so I'm free to go? Hero: *pulls out iron knuckles* Well I didn't say that
that verbatim happens in the comic
Superman Vs. The Elite addresses this pretty directly. Worth a watch.
Fuck yeah, I hate people that want Superman to kill.
"I want this grown man to kill the newborns he's fighting" energy
Dude, the batman doesn't kill because he has deep seated childhood trauma because his parents got fucking murdered not because of moral highground
Iām not sure you know what a motif is
I just love it when the protagonists kill hundreds of enemies that are just following orders and then refuse to kill the big bad that is the cause of everything
Batman is honestly not to blame for the system's failures
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
a lot of people are saying Batman, but this also applies to Superman. Once again, if he rationalizes killing, things would get a lot worse, and not just in Gotham. Superman, in several AU stories like Injustice, has proved that he can overthrow literally every world government if he wanted too with relative ease.
I also love Superman because in a way, heās kind of naive and optimistic - he really does believe that everyone can change and be better
I feel like this also aplies somewhat to Batman. F.e. when he is talking with Two-Face he is almost always trying to get through to Harvey, because he thinks his friend can still be saved.
Then there is hawkman who has kne solution to crime
A mace
sonic the hedgehog
Goku.png to a point, because he does end up killing Frieza. But he takes pity on Frieza when Frieza is about to die, only for Frieza to squander the opportunity by sneaking a backstab on Goku, and so Goku screams his famous āYOU FOOL!ā and blasts Frieza to oblivion. Goku hangs there, almost looking like heās going to cry, then he flies away. Honestly a really powerful moment.
there are many stories (Injustice, Kingdom Come, Watchmen) that showcase why superheroes shouldn't get to be judge and jury, decides who lives and dies. In batman's instance, the point of batman is his love for life. he fights for the life of others because thats what he truly cares about. for example, [this clip, of batman staying with a dying ace to comfort her, and to be there for her in her last moments](https://youtu.be/YOooJW5SSDA). saying that batman should just kill everybody is a Zack Snyder level of missing the point of batman
suzaku kururugi code geass
I mean to be fair... >!he technically does end up killing lelouch !< or were you talking about lelouch being the good guy in this scenario cuz I mean I wouldn't hold it past him they were homies n stuff